| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2005 08:52:54 PM |
| Object: |
New Constitutional Amendments |
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
- No government taxation of property:
No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
- Military reform:
No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
without a Congressional Declaration of War.
Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
invasion by an outside force.
At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose any
foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
people, as individuals.
- Congressional reform:
The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
Representatives they send to Congress.
Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
respective state of origin.
Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
prosecution.
- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the "necessary
and proper" clauses.
- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in Article
1 Section 8.
- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
control the militia.
- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
only. (passing out food, water, etc)
These are just suggestions of course. The goal is to cut back the bloated
mess our government has become today to a simple government that respects
individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it governs.
.
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 05:31:50 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1135015117.848326.210050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Deuteros wrote:
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
about what the Constitution says?
If your saying that ALL Senators are Senators that ignore ALL of the
Constitution ALL of the time THEN you have set your argument up for the
big downfall SINCE all we need is one instance of attention to any part
of the Constitution at one particular time, like a quote of some
Senator quoting the Constitution in any way form or manner. Try again,
you lose.
Unfortunately for you, I didn't say that ALL Senators ignore ALL of the
Constitution ALL of the time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mrck" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
18 Dec 2005 09:51:24 PM |
|
|
How about another one.
On each federal election ballot, the voters shall be asked if they
would like their state to secede from the union. If a majority of
voters vote to secede, the the state shall immediately be declard a
soverign nation, and all US government troops and officials shall be
withdrawn within 90 days of the vote, and all federal taxation in
seceding state shall immedialy becom null and void.
Marion McCoskey
http://www.mcky.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
18 Dec 2005 11:40:09 PM |
|
|
mrck wrote:
How about another one.
On each federal election ballot, the voters shall be asked if they
would like their state to secede from the union. If a majority of
voters vote to secede, the the state shall immediately be declard a
soverign nation, and all US government troops and officials shall be
withdrawn within 90 days of the vote, and all federal taxation in
seceding state shall immedialy becom null and void.
Marion McCoskey
http://www.mcky.net
Better add to it that all government contracts will immediately be
moved out of the state, and the people working on the contract and
their families will be moved out as well at the state's expense, if
those people so choose. Many of the states get significant income from
those contracts, both directly and indirectly. With those taxpayers
and companies gone or out of work, there will be a significant drop in
the state's disposable income, which will likely cause a cascading
domino effect on poverty, especially when you also take into account
the loss of the troops and facilities in that state.
And speaking of those troops, what about the troops in the armed forced
from that state? What will their fate be? Immediate discharge?
Option to change to another state's citizenship? Having to stay in the
military until the end of their contracts?
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Infinity" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 01:54:49 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
mrck wrote:
How about another one.
On each federal election ballot, the voters shall be asked if they
would like their state to secede from the union. If a majority of
voters vote to secede, the the state shall immediately be declard a
soverign nation, and all US government troops and officials shall be
withdrawn within 90 days of the vote, and all federal taxation in
seceding state shall immedialy becom null and void.
Marion McCoskey
http://www.mcky.net
Better add to it that all government contracts will immediately be
moved out of the state, and the people working on the contract and
their families will be moved out as well at the state's expense, if
those people so choose. Many of the states get significant income from
those contracts, both directly and indirectly. With those taxpayers
and companies gone or out of work, there will be a significant drop in
the state's disposable income, which will likely cause a cascading
domino effect on poverty, especially when you also take into account
the loss of the troops and facilities in that state.
And speaking of those troops, what about the troops in the armed forced
from that state? What will their fate be? Immediate discharge?
Option to change to another state's citizenship? Having to stay in the
military until the end of their contracts?
Mark Sebree
*Thus spake Infinity*
ALL access to the federal freeways and Byways will
have to be paid by each vehicle that uses them.
All trade tariffs will be set by the federal government.
Of course everyone will be migrant workers and must
not try to vote or cross borders.
The federal government has a duty to require a regime change
because you have something it wants.. Invasion time again!!
Infinity
:-)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wise men study unknown and mysterious things, to enhance their wisdom.
While stupid men shout, kneel down, close their eyes and mumble...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMMORTALITY... WHY NOT ?
http://www.transhumanism.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 06:31:42 AM |
|
|
On 18 Dec 2005 21:40:09 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1134970808.858191.203270@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
With those taxpayers
and companies gone or out of work, there will be a significant drop in
the state's disposable income, which will likely cause a cascading
domino effect on poverty, especially when you also take into account
the loss of the troops and facilities in that state.
You think this might be at least partially (or even more-than-wholly) offset by
the taxes-no-longer-paid? You think it might not be a good deal? Do you know
who would be left? All those who feed on others.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 08:40:16 AM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 18 Dec 2005 21:40:09 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1134970808.858191.203270@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
With those taxpayers
and companies gone or out of work, there will be a significant drop in
the state's disposable income, which will likely cause a cascading
domino effect on poverty, especially when you also take into account
the loss of the troops and facilities in that state.
You think this might be at least partially (or even more-than-wholly) offset by
the taxes-no-longer-paid? You think it might not be a good deal? Do you know
who would be left? All those who feed on others.
No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
the budget. I am also including the support structure that helps
people that would leave, like grocery stores, retail, utilities
(companies can be big users of these), and all the other incidentals.
What's more, most things that the state uses would now be subject to an
import tax, in all likelihood, which will raise their proces and
decrease their demands. The states will have to do more with less
money, which means increasing taxes on those that are left. Which
leads to poorer people and services. Which reduces the tax base since
people will spend less money, which reduces the amount that companies
pay in taxes and sends some into bankruptcy, and so on until either a
complete collapse of the economy or a new stabilization point is
reached.
Those that would be left are those that provide services to the others,
and they are likely to end up poorer or forced out of business.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 05:13:16 PM |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135003216.832382.136160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
I am also including the support structure that helps
people that would leave, like grocery stores, retail, utilities
(companies can be big users of these), and all the other incidentals.
What's more, most things that the state uses would now be subject to an
import tax, in all likelihood, which will raise their proces and
decrease their demands. The states will have to do more with less
money, which means increasing taxes on those that are left. Which
leads to poorer people and services. Which reduces the tax base since
people will spend less money, which reduces the amount that companies
pay in taxes and sends some into bankruptcy, and so on until either a
complete collapse of the economy or a new stabilization point is
reached.
Those that would be left are those that provide services to the others,
and they are likely to end up poorer or forced out of business.
You have a catastrophically poor understanding of the workings of supply and
demand, coupled with an apparent presumption that all good things come from the
federal government (or are provided with its permission).
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 09:52:40 PM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135003216.832382.136160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
I am also including the support structure that helps
people that would leave, like grocery stores, retail, utilities
(companies can be big users of these), and all the other incidentals.
What's more, most things that the state uses would now be subject to an
import tax, in all likelihood, which will raise their proces and
decrease their demands. The states will have to do more with less
money, which means increasing taxes on those that are left. Which
leads to poorer people and services. Which reduces the tax base since
people will spend less money, which reduces the amount that companies
pay in taxes and sends some into bankruptcy, and so on until either a
complete collapse of the economy or a new stabilization point is
reached.
Those that would be left are those that provide services to the others,
and they are likely to end up poorer or forced out of business.
You have a catastrophically poor understanding of the workings of supply and
demand,
Or I have a better understanding than you do. You have removed the
supply of goods, and reduced the available income. Both of which tend
to drive up the real cost of goods.
coupled with an apparent presumption that all good things come from the
federal government (or are provided with its permission).
Again, wrong. I do know, however, that the government pays out a lot
of money to lease land from the state, as well as in the form of
contracts for everything from condiments to C-130's, including for
highway maintenance, Medicare/Medicaid, education, and an extremely
long list of other things. Those things at up. Suddenly, the state is
not getting the income it is used to get to provide the services that
it needs to provide. What's more, most stated are land-locked, so the
only imports MUST go through the USA or other states. That means that
it would be easy to put pressure on the state by simply not allowing
any imports or exports, including electricity.
I know that all good things do not come from the government, but a lot
of money and jobs do. That is what I am talking about. Try looking at
your state's budget, and look how much of it comes from the fed's in
one form or another. And then also add in how much is coming in
indirectly through the income and sales taxes of people that are
directly or indirectly employed by the US government. That ain't chump
change you are looking at. That is likely to be a significant
percentage of the state's budget. And all that money would disappear
if the state cut themselves off from the nation, money that provides
for the basic services that most people today take for granted.
However, like most people, I seriously doubt that you have thought the
ramifications of your proposal through.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morton Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 10:30:28 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1135050760.153855.298410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
<1135003216.832382.136160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
I am also including the support structure that helps
people that would leave, like grocery stores, retail, utilities
(companies can be big users of these), and all the other incidentals.
What's more, most things that the state uses would now be subject to an
import tax, in all likelihood, which will raise their proces and
decrease their demands. The states will have to do more with less
money, which means increasing taxes on those that are left. Which
leads to poorer people and services. Which reduces the tax base since
people will spend less money, which reduces the amount that companies
pay in taxes and sends some into bankruptcy, and so on until either a
complete collapse of the economy or a new stabilization point is
reached.
Those that would be left are those that provide services to the others,
and they are likely to end up poorer or forced out of business.
You have a catastrophically poor understanding of the workings of supply
and
demand,
Or I have a better understanding than you do. You have removed the
supply of goods, and reduced the available income. Both of which tend
to drive up the real cost of goods.
coupled with an apparent presumption that all good things come from the
federal government (or are provided with its permission).
Again, wrong. I do know, however, that the government pays out a lot
of money to lease land from the state, as well as in the form of
contracts for everything from condiments to C-130's, including for
highway maintenance, Medicare/Medicaid, education, and an extremely
long list of other things. Those things at up. Suddenly, the state is
not getting the income it is used to get to provide the services that
it needs to provide. What's more, most stated are land-locked, so the
only imports MUST go through the USA or other states. That means that
it would be easy to put pressure on the state by simply not allowing
any imports or exports, including electricity.
I know that all good things do not come from the government, but a lot
of money and jobs do. That is what I am talking about. Try looking at
your state's budget, and look how much of it comes from the fed's in
one form or another. And then also add in how much is coming in
indirectly through the income and sales taxes of people that are
directly or indirectly employed by the US government. That ain't chump
change you are looking at. That is likely to be a significant
percentage of the state's budget. And all that money would disappear
if the state cut themselves off from the nation, money that provides
for the basic services that most people today take for granted.
However, like most people, I seriously doubt that you have thought the
ramifications of your proposal through.
Around $3billion that used to go to Vejeos Island, Puerto Rico, came to my
area of Florida. It is the driving force behind our real estate market and
our under 3% unrmployment rate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 12:04:55 AM |
|
|
Morton Davis wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1135050760.153855.298410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote:
<1135003216.832382.136160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
I am also including the support structure that helps
people that would leave, like grocery stores, retail, utilities
(companies can be big users of these), and all the other incidentals.
What's more, most things that the state uses would now be subject to an
import tax, in all likelihood, which will raise their proces and
decrease their demands. The states will have to do more with less
money, which means increasing taxes on those that are left. Which
leads to poorer people and services. Which reduces the tax base since
people will spend less money, which reduces the amount that companies
pay in taxes and sends some into bankruptcy, and so on until either a
complete collapse of the economy or a new stabilization point is
reached.
Those that would be left are those that provide services to the others,
and they are likely to end up poorer or forced out of business.
You have a catastrophically poor understanding of the workings of supply
and
demand,
Or I have a better understanding than you do. You have removed the
supply of goods, and reduced the available income. Both of which tend
to drive up the real cost of goods.
coupled with an apparent presumption that all good things come from the
federal government (or are provided with its permission).
Again, wrong. I do know, however, that the government pays out a lot
of money to lease land from the state, as well as in the form of
contracts for everything from condiments to C-130's, including for
highway maintenance, Medicare/Medicaid, education, and an extremely
long list of other things. Those things at up. Suddenly, the state is
not getting the income it is used to get to provide the services that
it needs to provide. What's more, most stated are land-locked, so the
only imports MUST go through the USA or other states. That means that
it would be easy to put pressure on the state by simply not allowing
any imports or exports, including electricity.
I know that all good things do not come from the government, but a lot
of money and jobs do. That is what I am talking about. Try looking at
your state's budget, and look how much of it comes from the fed's in
one form or another. And then also add in how much is coming in
indirectly through the income and sales taxes of people that are
directly or indirectly employed by the US government. That ain't chump
change you are looking at. That is likely to be a significant
percentage of the state's budget. And all that money would disappear
if the state cut themselves off from the nation, money that provides
for the basic services that most people today take for granted.
However, like most people, I seriously doubt that you have thought the
ramifications of your proposal through.
Around $3billion that used to go to Vejeos Island, Puerto Rico, came to my
area of Florida. It is the driving force behind our real estate market and
our under 3% unrmployment rate.
Thank you for supporting my main point. Those are the types of things
that I am talking about.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 06:31:00 PM |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2005 19:52:40 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135050760.153855.298410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
coupled with an apparent presumption that all good things come from the
federal government (or are provided with its permission).
Again, wrong. I do know, however, that the government pays out a lot
of money to lease land from the state, as well as in the form of
contracts for everything from condiments to C-130's, including for
highway maintenance, Medicare/Medicaid, education, and an extremely
long list of other things.
Where do you think that money comes from? Do you think Senators harvest it from
money trees planted behind the Smithsonian?
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 09:50:01 PM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 19:52:40 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135050760.153855.298410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
coupled with an apparent presumption that all good things come from the
federal government (or are provided with its permission).
Again, wrong. I do know, however, that the government pays out a lot
of money to lease land from the state, as well as in the form of
contracts for everything from condiments to C-130's, including for
highway maintenance, Medicare/Medicaid, education, and an extremely
long list of other things.
Where do you think that money comes from? Do you think Senators harvest it from
money trees planted behind the Smithsonian?
From taxes that are paid to fund the government and to provide services
to the nation as a whole. And if you check your history, every
government has employed taxes to fund itself. A nation as a whole can
handle some things more efficiently or better than individual cities
or states can. That includes things like defense, which costs more
than any state can handle on its own. And without it, we would be
overrun very, very quickly. Especially given how little other
countries care for the current administration.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "mrck" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
23 Dec 2005 04:20:27 PM |
|
|
Not true! Iceland existed without a central, coercive government for
several hundred years.
Marion McCoskey
http://www.mcky.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
24 Dec 2005 08:39:41 AM |
|
|
On 23 Dec 2005 14:20:27 -0800, "mrck" <mrck@charter.net> wrote:
<1135376427.032957.229080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Not true! Iceland existed without a central, coercive government for
several hundred years.
Over 800, I believe. But you trimmed the post so hard no one knows what you
were replying to (...to what you were repl...)
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 06:49:20 PM |
|
|
On 20 Dec 2005 19:50:01 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135137001.088438.170140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
Where do you think that money comes from? Do you think Senators harvest it from
money trees planted behind the Smithsonian?
From taxes that are paid to fund the government and to provide services
to the nation as a whole. And if you check your history, every
government has employed taxes to fund itself. A nation as a whole can
handle some things more efficiently or better than individual cities
or states can. That includes things like defense, which costs more
than any state can handle on its own. And without it, we would be
overrun very, very quickly. Especially given how little other
countries care for the current administration.
You have placed the horse behind the cart: others have hated us for a very long
time so the current administration is to blame only in the sense that it
continues the failed policies of its predecessors: a militaristic, aggressive,
imperialist foreign policy.
"every government has employed taxes to fund itself" therefore this is obviously
a good idea, right? Your simple assertion does not constitute 'proof'.
"A nation as a whole can handle some things more efficiently...". At last, we
find a point of agreement! The things a nation handles better than staets,
cities or individuals includes defense, and this is why that task is assigned to
the federal government by the Constitution (along with several others). How
about "setting freight rates"? How about "deciding what plants are permitted to
be smoked"? How about "setting grade school curricula"? There are thousands of
such tasks that the federal government handles less well than others, and those
tasks are forbidden to it, but the fed does them anyway, and does them poorly.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 10:37:49 PM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 20 Dec 2005 19:50:01 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135137001.088438.170140@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
Where do you think that money comes from? Do you think Senators harvest it from
money trees planted behind the Smithsonian?
From taxes that are paid to fund the government and to provide services
to the nation as a whole. And if you check your history, every
government has employed taxes to fund itself. A nation as a whole can
handle some things more efficiently or better than individual cities
or states can. That includes things like defense, which costs more
than any state can handle on its own. And without it, we would be
overrun very, very quickly. Especially given how little other
countries care for the current administration.
You have placed the horse behind the cart: others have hated us for a very long
time so the current administration is to blame only in the sense that it
continues the failed policies of its predecessors: a militaristic, aggressive,
imperialist foreign policy.
However, Clinton left us on good terms with many other countries. They
may not have liked us much, but they did respect us. The policies that
you describe are what Bush has imposed. He has lost us what friends we
had, and squandered the sympathy we received after 9/11. His actions
have been very aggressive and militaristic, especially his decision to
attack Iraq, a country that was under the watch of the world, and who's
military had already been defanged. Basically, he attacked a
defenseless country for no reason. He has caused us to lose friends
and allies, and more countries to hate us for far more reason that they
might have had previously.
"every government has employed taxes to fund itself" therefore this is obviously
a good idea, right? Your simple assertion does not constitute 'proof'.
"A nation as a whole can handle some things more efficiently...". At last, we
find a point of agreement! The things a nation handles better than staets,
cities or individuals includes defense, and this is why that task is assigned to
the federal government by the Constitution (along with several others). How
about "setting freight rates"?
Interstate commerce, which is relegated to the federal government by
the Constitution.
How about "deciding what plants are permitted to be smoked"?
Commerce, domestic tranquility, general welfare.
How about "setting grade school curricula"?
Promote general welfare, "ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves
and our posterity, and minimum standards for education, something that
the USA seriously needs to improve anyway. Specifically "To promote
the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Besides, the feds do not actually set the grad school curriculums.
(and whom are you quoting, because I do not believe that I said that.)
The actual guidelines are set by the states, and the actual curriculum
is set by the local school board.
There are thousands of
such tasks that the federal government handles less well than others,
And you have not named any of them. And everyone has tasks that they
do better at and tasks that they do worse at. However, the tasks still
need to be done, usually.
and those
tasks are forbidden to it, but the fed does them anyway, and does them poorly.
Admittedly. However, you have yet to name any tasks that the fed is
forbidden to do. If you really think that the fed is forbidden to do
anything that they are doing, then you have the right to sue the
federal government in the US Circuit Court. (The lowest level where a
person can file suit against the federal government, I believe.)
However, be sure that you have all your facts straight, and you can
handle any point brought up, since it is likely that it will be
expensive for you otherwise.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 02:14:21 PM |
|
|
On 21 Dec 2005 20:37:49 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135226269.412367.79730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
However, Clinton left us on good terms with many other countries. They
may not have liked us much, but they did respect us. The policies that
you describe are what Bush has imposed. He has lost us what friends we
had, and squandered the sympathy we received after 9/11.
Bush is the worst President thus far (with the possible exception of Lincoln);
on that we are in complete and total agreement; no need to press the issue
further; you're 100% correct. That still leaves open the possibility that few
or none of his predecessors were worth a *****, either.
"A nation as a whole can handle some things more efficiently...". At last, we
find a point of agreement! The things a nation handles better than staets,
cities or individuals includes defense, and this is why that task is assigned to
the federal government by the Constitution (along with several others). How
about "setting freight rates"?
Interstate commerce, which is relegated to the federal government by
the Constitution.
"Regulating interstate commerce" meant something different to the men who
originally wrote those words. They used 'regulate' in the sense of 'make even';
they meant the United States to become one huge free-trade zone: no customs
duties, no restrictions, free passage from pointA thru pointB to pointC. They
did not mean "make any rule you feel like"
How about "deciding what plants are permitted to be smoked"?
Commerce, domestic tranquility, general welfare.
9th amendment.
How about "setting grade school curricula"?
Promote general welfare, "ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves
and our posterity, and minimum standards for education, something that
the USA seriously needs to improve anyway. Specifically "To promote
the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
The preamble is a general statement of purposes; the implementation (the
specifics) are in Article I, section 8. Good reading. You ought to memorize
it. There are no words there or anywhere else in the Constitution (the
government's sole grant of authority) about "minimum standards for education".
"Promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts" was to be done via patents,
not micro-managing elementary schools; read the text.
Besides, the feds do not actually set the grad school curriculums.
(and whom are you quoting, because I do not believe that I said that.)
The actual guidelines are set by the states, and the actual curriculum
is set by the local school board.
Uh-oh... somebody better notify the Department of Education (a cabinet-level
appointment, btw) that they don't have any function. What is that they do
anyway?
and those
tasks are forbidden to it, but the fed does them anyway, and does them poorly.
Admittedly. However, you have yet to name any tasks that the fed is
forbidden to do.
Don't have to; the 10th amendment does it for me (q.v.).
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 05:11:12 PM |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135003216.832382.136160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
the budget.
Those aren't the states you have to worry about...
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 10:01:43 PM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135003216.832382.136160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
the budget.
Those aren't the states you have to worry about...
That means that you don't have to worry about any states. All of them
get significant amounts of money from the government. And it is
actually the poor, conservative states that are most likely to try to
withdraw from the USA, to their extreme detriment.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 06:28:30 PM |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2005 20:01:43 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135051303.147951.294360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135003216.832382.136160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
the budget.
Those aren't the states you have to worry about...
That means that you don't have to worry about any states. All of them
get significant amounts of money from the government.
And where, pray tell, does the government get that money in the first place?
Wealth comes only from those who produce. Nothing in government produces; all
government does is consume (in the process of redistributing the wealth
collected from producers). 'Printing money' does not qualify as 'producing
wealth'.
Ipso facto, some states give more than they get; others get more than they give.
If you lose the ability to tax those who give more than they get, the great game
is OVER.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 06:42:14 PM |
|
|
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Frank Clarke wrote:
No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
the budget.
Those aren't the states you have to worry about...
That means that you don't have to worry about any states. All of them
get significant amounts of money from the government.
And where, pray tell, does the government get that money in the first place?
Wealth comes only from those who produce. Nothing in government produces; all
government does is consume (in the process of redistributing the wealth
collected from producers).
Neocon idiocy.
Take a software corporation. Who produces? The software engineeers.
Would they sell anything just producing the product? Nope. Marketing
and sales are needed to sell the product. Administrators are need to
manage the office. Accountants take care of handling the money.
Execs are there to skim off profits (cough).
Many people in government produce. They produce laws and regulations.
They produce infrastructure. They produce security. Discounting the
contribution of government workers is nothing but right-wing idiocy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 06:34:10 PM |
|
|
On 21 Dec 2005 00:42:14 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<43a8a4e6$0$58094$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
And where, pray tell, does the government get that money in the first place?
Wealth comes only from those who produce. Nothing in government produces; all
government does is consume (in the process of redistributing the wealth
collected from producers).
Neocon idiocy.
Take a software corporation. Who produces? The software engineeers.
Would they sell anything just producing the product? Nope. Marketing
and sales are needed to sell the product. Administrators are need to
manage the office. Accountants take care of handling the money.
Execs are there to skim off profits (cough).
Many people in government produce. They produce laws and regulations.
And all of this cost-free! There is no cost to comply with OSHA regulations and
my taxes are zero!
They produce infrastructure. They produce security. Discounting the
contribution of government workers is nothing but right-wing idiocy.
Really? How much government would we have if it had to run on donations? The
answer to that alone ought to give you an excellent estimate of the perceived
value of government. After all, if people generally perceived that they were
getting a good ROI from their government dollars, DC could just set up a PayPal
account and rake in the dough -- no IRS required.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 11:08:08 PM |
|
|
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
And where, pray tell, does the government get that money in the first place?
Wealth comes only from those who produce. Nothing in government produces; all
government does is consume (in the process of redistributing the wealth
collected from producers).
Neocon idiocy.
Take a software corporation. Who produces? The software engineeers.
Would they sell anything just producing the product? Nope. Marketing
and sales are needed to sell the product. Administrators are need to
manage the office. Accountants take care of handling the money.
Execs are there to skim off profits (cough).
Many people in government produce. They produce laws and regulations.
And all of this cost-free! There is no cost to comply with OSHA regulations and
my taxes are zero!
You've already done your part to show us all that you're an idiot.
They produce infrastructure. They produce security. Discounting the
contribution of government workers is nothing but right-wing idiocy.
Really?
Yes.
How much government would we have if it had to run on donations?
Very little.
The
answer to that alone ought to give you an excellent estimate of the perceived
value of government.
"Tragedy of the Commons"
Look it up. The short version: Why would I pay anything for
government when I can count on you paying?
After all, if people generally perceived that they were
getting a good ROI from their government dollars,
Then they might vote in favor of taxes to pay for it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 01:36:29 PM |
|
|
On 22 Dec 2005 05:08:08 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<43aa34b8$0$58108$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
And all of this cost-free! There is no cost to comply with OSHA regulations and
my taxes are zero!
You've already done your part to show us all that you're an idiot.
Ad hominems... how predictable.
After all, if people generally perceived that they were
getting a good ROI from their government dollars,
Then they might vote in favor of taxes to pay for it.
People vote to have -OTHER- people pay taxes. Nobody needs a vote to make a
donation.
A very small application of logic would do wonders for your positions;
unfortunately (for you) it would cause you to reverse all of them.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 03:11:26 PM |
|
|
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
And all of this cost-free! There is no cost to comply with OSHA regulations and
my taxes are zero!
You've already done your part to show us all that you're an idiot.
Ad hominems... how predictable.
That you don't even know what an ad hominem is only more evidence that
you're an idiot.
After all, if people generally perceived that they were
getting a good ROI from their government dollars,
Then they might vote in favor of taxes to pay for it.
People vote to have -OTHER- people pay taxes.
An obvious lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
23 Dec 2005 03:43:41 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
And all of this cost-free! There is no cost to comply with OSHA regulations and
my taxes are zero!
You've already done your part to show us all that you're an idiot.
Ad hominems... how predictable.
That you don't even know what an ad hominem is only more evidence that
you're an idiot.
How is "you're an idiot" not an ad hominem?
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
23 Dec 2005 04:50:53 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
And all of this cost-free! There is no cost to comply with OSHA regulations and
my taxes are zero!
You've already done your part to show us all that you're an idiot.
Ad hominems... how predictable.
That you don't even know what an ad hominem is only more evidence that
you're an idiot.
How is "you're an idiot" not an ad hominem?
Learn what an ad hominem is, idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
23 Dec 2005 05:26:51 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
And all of this cost-free! There is no cost to comply with OSHA regulations and
my taxes are zero!
You've already done your part to show us all that you're an idiot.
Ad hominems... how predictable.
That you don't even know what an ad hominem is only more evidence that
you're an idiot.
How is "you're an idiot" not an ad hominem?
Learn what an ad hominem is, idiot.
Unlike certain people, I actually had a proper education, which involved
several years of latin. I don't think I'm the one that needs to learn
something here. Read, please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
23 Dec 2005 07:08:05 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
And all of this cost-free! There is no cost to comply with OSHA regulations and
my taxes are zero!
You've already done your part to show us all that you're an idiot.
Ad hominems... how predictable.
That you don't even know what an ad hominem is only more evidence that
you're an idiot.
How is "you're an idiot" not an ad hominem?
Learn what an ad hominem is, idiot.
Unlike certain people, I actually had a proper education,
No evidence of that.
[...]
I don't think I'm the one that needs to learn
something here. Read, please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
Obviously you haven't read it yourself because you make the mistake
of the uneducated of thining that an ad hominem is an insult.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
24 Dec 2005 02:50:03 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
And all of this cost-free! There is no cost to comply with OSHA regulations and
my taxes are zero!
You've already done your part to show us all that you're an idiot.
Ad hominems... how predictable.
That you don't even know what an ad hominem is only more evidence that
you're an idiot.
How is "you're an idiot" not an ad hominem?
Learn what an ad hominem is, idiot.
Unlike certain people, I actually had a proper education,
No evidence of that.
[...]
I don't think I'm the one that needs to learn
something here. Read, please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
Obviously you haven't read it yourself because you make the mistake
of the uneducated of thining that an ad hominem is an insult.
No, I make the mistake of thining that an ad hominem is an "argument"
wherby you try to attack the validity of the argument by attacking the
person. The crude version would be something like: "Your argument can't
be true, because you're an idiot."
I don't think it was a stretch of the imagination, by however said it
was an ad hominem, to say that what you said was just a variation to
this example.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
